Following is a post written by a reader and part of our ongoing Guest Article submissions. She has done a great job on presenting the arrogance of Palin, Ralph Reed and their dominionist club. It shows how they have a disregard for laws and regulation when it comes to what they want to do. But there is that “absolution as the Chosen” factor again….they don’t have to play by the rules…

So….just whose FAITH and whose FREEDOM are they referring to? Rest assured that it is not yours unless you are a born-again follower…

GUEST ARTICLE BELOW:

Submitted by Jen

Are Sarah Palin and the Virginia Faith and Freedom Coalition’s Robo-calls Legal?

Some residents of Virginia have recently received a robo-call from former-Governor Sarah Palin. Mrs. Palin identified herself by name and then entreated the listener to “vote for our shared principles” and to “vote your values.” A recorded male voice then came on the line and informed the listener that the call had been paid for by the Virginia Faith and Freedom Coalition.

But was this call legal?

First, let’s look at the legalese of robo-calls.

According to the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991 regarding “robo-calls”:

All artificial or prerecorded telephone messages (i) shall at the beginning of the message, state clearly the identity of the business, individuals, or other entity that is initiating the call, and (ii) shall, during or after the message, state clearly the telephone number or address of such business, other entity, or individual.

Mrs. Palin identified herself, and then a male voice identified that the call was paid for by the Virginia Faith and Freedom Coalition, but no address or telephone number was included.

So does this mean that the call was illegal? Not necessarily.

The TCPA leaves it up to each state to decide how to regulate robo-calls of a political nature. So, let’s see what Virginia’s regulations say, shall we?

According to Virginia’s Code:

It shall be unlawful for any candidate or candidate campaign committee to make campaign telephone calls without disclosing, before the conclusion of each telephone call, information to identify the candidate or candidate campaign committee who has authorized and is paying for the calls unless such call is terminated prematurely by means beyond the maker’s control.

In other words, in order for the call to be lawful, the “candidate” or “candidate campaign committee” must disclose who has authorized and is paying for the call, unless the call ended prematurely due to circumstances uncontrollable to the caller.

On the surface, it seems like this particular legal requirement may have been satisfied. After all, a male voice clearly relays that the call has been paid for by Virginia Faith and Freedom Coalition. But take a closer look. “It shall be unlawful for any candidate or candidate campaign committee…”

See that pesky little language there – “candidate campaign committee”? Keep that in the back of your mind for a moment, because we’ll be coming back to this phrase a little later. For now, let’s finish looking at the VA code.

Hmmm, well, isn’t that strange? Interestingly enough, the Virginia code also requires that “[t]he person making the telephone call shall disclose the name of the candidate.”

Did you hear a candidate endorsement? Me either. But this is something else we’ll also have to come back to.

Finally, VA code states that:

It shall also be unlawful (i) for any candidate or candidate campaign committee who contracts for campaign telephone calls to fail to provide to the persons making the telephone calls the identifying information required by this section or (ii) for any person to provide a false or fictitious name or address when providing the identifying information required.

(2000, c. 874, § 24.2-1014.1; 2006, cc. 787, 892.)

Megan Stapleton, Mrs. Palin’s spokeswoman, has already confirmed that Mrs. Palin recorded that message and FCC confirmed they’re behind these calls, so it seems they’re in the clear there.

So now that we’ve got the full code out of the way, let’s go back to the phrase “candidate campaign committee.” Candidates and candidate campaign committees are legally permitted to robo-call, but what about the Virginia Faith and Freedom Coalition? Who are they and are they a “candidate campaign committee”?

According to the “About” section on their website The Virginia Faith ad Freedom Coalition, aka the FFC:

“…believe[s] that the greatness of America lies not in the federal government but in the character of our people — the simple virtues of faith, hard work, marriage, family, personal responsibility, and helping the least among us.”

And that they:

[…are] committed to educating, equipping, and mobilizing people of faith and like-minded individuals to be effective citizens. Together [they] will influence public policy and enact legislation that strengthens families, promotes time-honored values, protects the dignity of life and marriage, lowers the tax burden on small business and families, and requires government to tighten its belt and live within its means.

Yet the bulk of information on their website appears to be dedicated to only reporting activities and news items related to the Republican and emerging “Conservative” Parties and Republican and “Conservative Party candidates. One article, entitled “Grassroots Blitz in VA,” includes a photo of Governor-candidate McDonnell with FCC volunteers, and can be read here:

Okay, so now we have an idea of who they are and what they believe, but that doesn’t answer the question about whether they are a “candidate campaign committee,” or if so, whom they represent, since they and Mrs. Palin failed to identify a candidate in their paid-for robo-call.

To answer the first part of the question – whether they are a “candidate campaign committee” for any candidate – one needs to consult the Virginia State Board of Elections, which maintains a “List of Active Candidate Campaign Committees.” A search through all seventeen pages for the name “Virginia Faith and Freedom Coalition” yielded no matches to the Virginia Faith and Freedom Coalition.

The search did yield the name of Governor-candidate Robert “Bob” McDonnell’s campaign committee – the Republican candidate whom Sarah and the Virginia Faith and Freedom Coalition may or may not have been politicking for since they failed to identify a candidate in the robo-call - yielded one result: “McDonnell for Governor” ( page 11).

So they don’t appear to be a “candidate campaign committee” and they didn’t clearly endorse any candidate by name, but can they still legally robo-call? At this point, the answer is, maybe.

To find an answer to this question, let’s look first at some information disclosed by George Stephanopoulos at George’s “Bottom Line”.

According to Mr. Stephanopoulos, there’s a good reason why Mrs. Palin and the FFC did not disclose support for Governor-candidate McDonnell:

The calls do not include an explicit appeal to vote for McDonnell, according to Sen. Martin, because his organization is prohibited as a 501(c)(4) organization from making a direct appeal for the election of a particular candidate.

AHA! So no we learn that FFC is a 501(c)4 organization and supposedly can’t endorse a “particular candidate,” but what exactly is a 501(c)4?

According to the IRS, a 501(c)(4) is a nonprofit dedicated to Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees: (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p557.pdf, page 46):

To qualify for exemption under section 501(c)(4), the organization’s net earnings must be devoted only to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes. In addition, no part of the organization’s net earnings may benefit any private shareholder or individual.

Additionally:

[…] social welfare “does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.

OK, so FFC really is not legally permitted to endorse a specific candidate. And, to be fair, in her robo-call, Mrs. Palin, on behalf of FFC, didn’t exactly say the name of any particular candidate or indicate she (or they) represents any particular party.  But that doesn’t mean that FFC is apolitical, as evidenced by their website (http://www.ffcoalition.com/). And that in itself may be “illegal” for a “nonprofit.”

But let’s leave that thought for now, because we really need to know what the rules are for a 501(c)4 organization in legally making robo-calls, otherwise known as “telephone solicitations.”

According to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 47 U.S.C. § 227:

(4) The term “telephone solicitation” means the initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services, which is transmitted to any person, but such term does not include a call or message (A) to any person with that person’s prior express invitation or permission, (B) to any person with whom the caller has an established business relationship, or (C) by a tax exempt nonprofit organization.

So, that seems pretty cut and dried, doesn’t it? FCC is a “tax exempt nonprofit organization” and as such should legally be able to make “solicitationous” robo-calls, right?

Well, yeah, maybe, but even considering all this, those calls may not have been legal, but not for the reason one might expect.

There’s one last thing we need to consider. So let’s go back and take another look at that article entitled “As Palin Robocalls in Virginia, McDonnell Keeps His Distance” by George Stephanopolous. He reported that:

The Virginia Faith and Freedom Coalition put together the [robo-]call list by matching up church lists with records of who had voted in recent elections. The targets included both high propensity and lower propensity voters.

So why is this important? Because non-profits, such as FFC, very probably shouldn’t have legal access to those “records of who had voted in recent elections.”

Stick with me for a moment as I veer off on a not-quite tangent.

You see, the Palin/FCC robo-calls haven’t been the only controversy brewing in Virginia lately. Another controversy, involving the antics of the Know Campaign, has some eerily familiar similarities.

The Virginian Pilot has written a few articles in the past few days about how the Know Campaign, a non-profit organization, may have gotten illegal access to Virginians’ personal voter history.

On October 28, 2009, Mr. Sizemore reported in the article “Your voting history could be in a neighbor’s mailbox” that:

The Know Campaign, a new nonprofit group, is sending out an individualized mass mailing to people in 350,000 households recapping their recent voting history and that of their neighbors, listed by name and address. It doesn’t reveal how people voted – merely whether they participated.

And that:

The mailing is being funded with a $150,000 grant from a foundation that [Executive Director Debra Girvin] declined to name.

The group is using the Internet domain name that was used by the Know Campaign, which helped defeat a 2002 ballot question on a sales tax for road improvements in Hampton Roads, but has no other connection to that group, Girvin said.

Mr. Sizemore did a follow up story on October 29, 2009 , entitled “Nonprofit halts planned  mailing of voting history”, which relayed that the Know Campaign’s mass mailing had been temporarily halted because of the questions of legality in how that information was obtained:

An inquiry into the matter is under way at the State Board of Elections, where officials were surprised to learn that a nonprofit group called the Know Campaign was planning to disseminate the voting data to 350,000 randomly chosen households.

Though the Know Campaign is arguing that the information they’d obtained was “public information” they’d received from the Board of Elections, the Board of Elections told a different story:

Nancy Rodrigues, the board secretary, said she was “shocked” to read a Virginian-Pilot report about the effort, which the group characterized as an attempt to boost voter turnout in Tuesday’s gubernatorial election.

“We did not release that information to the Know Campaign,” Rodrigues said. “Nonprofits are not given that access.”

Apparently, according to state law:

[…] lists of people who voted in elections can be released only to candidates, elected officials and political party chairmen. Those who get such access must sign a statement agreeing not to share the data with anyone else. Violation of the law is a felony.

So how did the the Virginia Faith and Freedom Coalition, a nonprofit organization, know who to robo-call again? Oh, that’s right, they’d obtained “records of who had voted in recent elections.”

And what was that about non-profits having that information? That’s right, it might not be LEGAL.

Maybe the VA Elections Board needs to take a closer look at these robo-calls.

Is Sarah Palin anywhere near this situation? She is? What a surprise….

Scridb filter